2022 might have been the worst year for desktop dedicated graphics on record

[Daniel Sims]

The big picture: As financial analyses summarizing 2022 keep rolling in, they continually spell bad news for tech hardware sales. The latest numbers from Jon Peddie Research paint a historically bad picture for desktop dedicated graphics cards. The fourth quarter improved from the previous quarter but fell significantly year-over-year.

Shipments of dedicated desktop graphics add-in-boards (AIB) returned to growth in Q4 2022 as Nvidia maintained its overwhelming market dominance. However, the quarter closed out what is likely the worst year for discreet GPUs on record.

The big GPU manufacturers and their partners shipped 7.3 million AIBs in the quarter ending December 31, 2022. That number represents a 7.8 percent increase from the 6.81 million moved in the prior quarter but a 27.4 percent year-over-year decline.

Team Red saw the most significant quarterly and annual swings in either direction. In Q4 2022, AMD shipped 21.2 percent more GPUs than in Q3 but 62.2 percent fewer than in Q4 2021. Nvidia saw a smaller quarter-to-quarter jump – just four percent – but also suffered a minor annual fall of 22 percent. More importantly, Team Green commanded 84 percent of the AIB market in Q4, while AMD increased its share to 11 percent, and Intel grabbed five percent.

Research group president Dr. Jon Peddie credited Nvidia's flagship GeForce RTX 4090 with much of the quarterly growth despite its $1,600 MSRP. A JPR analyst said consistently low GPU stock indicates that enthusiasts are okay with high prices. Since AMD launched the Radeon RX 7800XT and 7800XTX at the very end of 2022, it's unclear how much impact its flagship sales had in Q4.

The third quarter of 2022 was the worst for AIB shipments since 2005. The fourth was slightly better, still clocking in as the second poorest, cinching 2022 as the worst year on record for desktop dedicated graphics at around 38 million units. The all-time peak was the 116 million GPUs sold throughout 1998.

A deciding factor in the subpar numbers is likely the recent decline in desktop PC sales. Remote working in 2020 and 2021 caused a sales spike that mostly went to notebooks, with 2022 marked by a hangover affecting various sectors like DRAM, CPUs, notebook graphics, and much more.

Despite the dismal year, JPR expects the AIB market to expand by 7 percent over the next three years.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/97848-2022-might-have-worst-year-desktop-dedicated-graphics.html

 

[madboyv1]

I imagine charging 150%-200% over the price of similarly "classed" cards from before the pandemic, and restricting production and shipments to maintain price points through artificial scarcity has nothing to do with the abysmal market adoption of newer cards. No sir, couldn't be that.

It must be the consumers, they're wrong for not wanting to buy these cards or not working hard enough to afford them at what the AIBs (and direct manufacturers) think they're worth!

edit: /s if it wasn't obvious, and yes I know it's more complicated than that, but not too much more so.

 

[Julnor]

I'm not sure if they quite did it, but they very well may have killed the golden goose.

Personally I mostly just play indies that would run on a potato anyway. Great graphics can enhance a great game but are worthless in a terrible game.

I'll still mostly be a PC gamer just because I like using my PC and can play older games, but if I really, really wanted to play some new AAAs I would absolutely grab a PS5 before I'd burn anything over about $400 for a traditional x70 level GPU---and I don't mean today's inflated version which is more akin to the 50Ti level in terms of featureset and slotting.

 

[yRaz]

I imagine charging 150%-200% over the price of similarly "classed" cards from before the pandemic, and restricting production and shipments to maintain price points through artificial scarcity has nothing to do with the abysmal market adoption of newer cards. No sir, couldn't be that.

It must be the consumers, they're wrong for not wanting to buy these cards or not working hard enough to afford them at what the AIBs (and direct manufacturers) think they're worth!

edit: /s if it wasn't obvious, and yes I know it's more complicated than that, but not too much more so.

This is the new normal, the big guys saw that people were willing to pay scalper pricing and they wanted in on the action. Now the board partners and retailers are actually mad because the cards aren't selling. People with a money is no object mentality all want the 4090, the absolute best. People who were looking at 70 and 80 class cards are not the money is no object people. People don't buy a 70 class card because it's what they want, they buy it because it's what they can afford.

Manufacturers have alienated so many customers simply because they've priced themselves out of that market. nVidia doesn't want to release a 4060 because it'll cut into 30 series card sales, but the "budget" 30 series cards are sitting on shelves, too. They're sitting on shelves because people don't want to pay the ridiculous pricing people are asking for it.

AMD's doing alright with the 6000 series pricing but nVidia needs to wake up and drop the MSRP of the 30 series.

 

[daffy duck]

I only buy superseded architectures and even then only second hand. Haven't been able to afford a new higher end GPU for may years and would never buy a flagship product.

Happy enough with my 6800XT as I'm only doing 1440p gaming. Maybe I'll consider a RDNA3 card when RDNA4 starts shipping.

 

[captaincranky]

Manufacturers have alienated so many customers simply because they've priced themselves out of that market. nVidia doesn't want to release a 4060 because it'll cut into 30 series card sales, but the "budget" 30 series cards are sitting on shelves, too. They're sitting on shelves because people don't want to pay the ridiculous pricing people are asking for it.

If you want ridiculous pricing, have a look at the GTX-1630. They're trying to get $189.00 for a card that's basically a GT-1030, with 4 gigs of RAM. I can get a 1030 for $95.00.

I'd go $110.00 on one, if only to stop the browsers from black screening IGPs on these 10+ YO turds I use to ply the web.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

I'm not sure if they quite did it, but they very well may have killed the golden goose.

Personally I mostly just play indies that would run on a potato anyway. Great graphics can enhance a great game but are worthless in a terrible game.

I'll still mostly be a PC gamer just because I like using my PC and can play older games, but if I really, really wanted to play some new AAAs I would absolutely grab a PS5 before I'd burn anything over about $400 for a traditional x70 level GPU---and I don't mean today's inflated version which is more akin to the 50Ti level in terms of featureset and slotting.

So you'd sooner spend $600+ on a closed ecosystem with subscription costs and $70 games instead of a $400 GPU that will last for years?

 

[Julnor]

So you'd sooner spend $600+ on a closed ecosystem with subscription costs and $70 games instead of a $400 GPU that will last for years?

That comment doesn't make much sense to me. You're going to have to explain each part of it.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

That comment doesn't make much sense to me. You're going to have to explain each part of it.

It makes perfect sense. You are upset at the price of new GPUs, you do not want to pay $400 for a xx7x tier card, so instead you'd rather pay $600 for a PS5 to play the same games.

Those are your words.

I'll still mostly be a PC gamer just because I like using my PC and can play older games, but if I really, really wanted to play some new AAAs I would absolutely grab a PS5 before I'd burn anything over about $400 for a traditional x70 level GPU---and I don't mean today's inflated version which is more akin to the 50Ti level in terms of featureset and slotting.

This is a system that does not integrate with your current software library, a system that requires an online subscription to play online, and has games that are more expensive then on steam and rarely go on sale.

Meanwhile, modern GPUs are overkill. IF you are not pursuing ultra high rez 144hz action, cards from 6 years ago still work perfectly fine, and any new card today will easily last at least half a decade, since consoles have 5+ year lifespans.

What part of that is confusing?

 

[Moochy]

The hardware makers have killed their market with their greed. People really don't NEED the latest especially at the prices asked. I am likely not buying new hardware for two or three years down the road.

 

[Moochy]

I only buy superseded architectures and even then only second hand. Haven't been able to afford a new higher end GPU for may years and would never buy a flagship product.

Happy enough with my 6800XT as I'm only doing 1440p gaming. Maybe I'll consider a RDNA3 card when RDNA4 starts shipping.

That's exactly how I do it too.

 

[Julnor]

It makes perfect sense. You are upset at the price of new GPUs, you do not want to pay $400 for a xx7x tier card, so instead you'd rather pay $600 for a PS5 to play the same games.

Those are your words.

This is a system that does not integrate with your current software library, a system that requires an online subscription to play online, and has games that are more expensive then on steam and rarely go on sale.

Meanwhile, modern GPUs are overkill. IF you are not pursuing ultra high rez 144hz action, cards from 6 years ago still work perfectly fine, and any new card today will easily last at least half a decade, since consoles have 5+ year lifespans.

What part of that is confusing?

All of it. PS5 is $400 isn't it? Why would you have to pay a subscription? Where are the new AAAs on PC that sell for cheaper than the console releases? Where are you getting that consoles don't have sales? Why is the entire console being compared to only one component of a PC? Why is Steam not considered a closed library but the console is? Why are indies not counted on console when they release on there too?

None of what you wrote makes any sense, just sounds like someone that thinks they are "pcmasterrace" (which was started as a joke).

I get it you're one of those "Team big corporation" guys. I just play video games as a hobby and don't think I'm part of a console brand or PC brand or whatever, I just look at the data and make choices based on the relevant data at that time, not previous markets, not future markets, not my own made up version of it.

Have a nice day.

 

[rsmith222]

The obvious solution is for Nvidia and AMD to raise prices.

 

[Nobina]

So you'd sooner spend $600+ on a closed ecosystem with subscription costs and $70 games instead of a $400 GPU that will last for years?

A console will last longer than any PC without upgrades. It costs about as much as a mid-range GPU. Subscriptions and $70 games exist on PC as well. It depends on what you prefer.

 

[mgilbert]

$2,000 for a halo card and $600 to $1,000 for midrange to upper midrange cards, and they actually have the gall to act surprised that people won't pay such obscene prices? Well, who woulda thunk it... I sincerely hope people stay away in droves until the whole thing collapses around them - especially Nvidia. I'd love nothing more than to see them facing bankruptcy. They deserve nothing less.

 

[emmzo]

The obvious solution is for Nvidia and AMD to raise prices.

Correct! People don`t buy because cards are too cheap and buying cheap means you`re poor. I bet that`s exactly what Huang thinks. I mean, just a while ago, people would spend 1500 bucks on a 3060, mining or not, that was the price and they were selling like hotcakes and now you don`t want to pay the same amount of money for a 4080? That could only mean the correct price is 3000!! And don`t get me started on slimy AMD.

 

[takaozo]

Consoles........
Pay initial $500-600 and another $90-120 per year just to play online games. Let's say you keep for 3 years, operational cost is $960 ($600+$360) and not counting the game prices. For PC games buy once and keep going from Win7 to Win11. Cant say the same from PS3 to PS5. I know some games are cross gen but not all.

Not too long ago you can build a gaming PC with $1000. Now counting the fact that some parts you keep more than 5 years, like case and PSU and some people keep MB + CPU + RAM for 5 years. I know I kept the i7 4790 build for 3 GPU upgrades: Gtx 760 to Gtx 1060 to Rtx 2060.

So unless the GPU dies on me I'm not planning to get a new or used card any time soon.

 

[poshflamingos]

All of it. PS5 is $400 isn't it?

No, it's $500. You can get the digital-only version for $400, but then you lose access to the physical copy market, which means you'll spend more on games. There is no circumstance where the digital-only version ends up cheaper than the disc version for a normal user that buys more than only a small handful of games during the entire generation. The disc version invariably ends up being cheaper despite costing $100 more upfront.

Why would you have to pay a subscription?

Because without the subscription you lose access to online features and game giveaways. Every PC has free, lifetime access to those online features and giveaways, but on consoles that privilege costs and additional $60/year. That means a PS5 actually costs $800 today ($500 console + $300 for 5 years of subscriptions) or $920 at launch ($500 consoles + $420 for 7 years of online subscriptions).

Where are the new AAAs on PC that sell for cheaper than the console releases?

Are you living under a rock? Sony caused a huge commotion by changing the price of PS5 releases to $70, a move that many publishers then followed, and later so did Microsoft. On PC a few publishers also tried launching games for $70, but most still launch at $60.

Where are you getting that consoles don't have sales?

They do. But they are nowhere near as frequent or deeply discounted as the sales available on the multiple stores on PC.

Why is the entire console being compared to only one component of a PC?

Because, unlike consoles where you need to toss the whole thing out and buy an entire new one when a generation starts, PCs don't need to be thrown away and you can upgrade individual components as needed. For many PC users, all they need to get ready for the next generation is a drop-in GPU replacement.

Why is Steam not considered a closed library but the console is?

Because Steam is not the entirety of the PC gaming market. There is also Epic, Uplay, Origin, GOG, Windows Store, Humble, Battle.net, Itch.io, as well as key stores like GreenManGaming, Fanatical, IndieGala, and many others. You don't have to use Steam if you don't want to.

Unlike consoles, where devs have no choice but to use Sony's or Microsoft's store, because it's the only option allowed.

Why are indies not counted on console when they release on there too?

Only a minuscule portion of indie games release on consoles. The vast overwhelming majority of them are PC-only.

Have a nice day.

When you try to be smug at the end while also publicly displaying how little you know what you're talking about, it doesn't end up looking too good for you.

 

[Jack77]

Actually, if I personally would go for a console, I would only need a NUC for 95% of my other computing needs. Which would save me a lot of money.

 

[Watzupken]

I actually don’t think 2022 will be the worst year for GPUs. It is likely this or next year that we will see the full impact due to increasingly bad economic condition and increasing inflation (even though “official” numbers says that inflation is slowing or dropped slightly). Nvidia may see an increase in demand due to AI, but people don’t keep throwing money at very inflated GPUs. As soon as the hype wanes, the demand will drop again.

 

[Watzupken]

Actually, if I personally would go for a console, I would only need a NUC for 95% of my other computing needs. Which would save me a lot of money.

This is a good plan if you are not into first person shooter games. In fact, I think it is easier to game on a console since there are very limited graphic options, and most games will just work. Price wise, you get the full package in the form of a PS5 or XBSX at the price of a RTX 3070. So it is probably the most affordable way to game.

 

[Sir Sparkles]

I actually don’t think 2022 will be the worst year for GPUs. It is likely this or next year that we will see the full impact due to increasingly bad economic condition and increasing inflation (even though “official” numbers says that inflation is slowing or dropped slightly). Nvidia may see an increase in demand due to AI, but people don’t keep throwing money at very inflated GPUs. As soon as the hype wanes, the demand will drop again.

Yeah man, the pain has only just begun for corporates who have shareholders that demand they have ever increasing profit growth. We'll see it in many sectors, not just the GPU market.

 

[Julnor]

Yeah man, the pain has only just begun for corporates who have shareholders that demand they have ever increasing profit growth. We'll see it in many sectors, not just the GPU market.

Yeah I still think food and housing are the most important expenditures. That means nothing to the corporate overlords and people who have mommy and daddy covering everything, but for everyone else everything went up in price, and we'd rather eat and heat our homes and sleep under a roof. Also at the current GPU prices, ironically enough, you can travel and enjoy other experiences that I personally think are more enjoyable anyway.

For most people, this stuff is just video games. Watch a movie or play a game it's the same in the end, people are fine with whatever makes more sense cost wise.